[AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt

[Roman]

First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a
great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve.
As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from
Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below


Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to
 At least 150 selections over 12 months
 Remove the best result from every 20 winners
 Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%)
And I still don't understand that.

Fourteen observations on the punt

1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that
is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there
may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?)

RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the
market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more
than third favs etc

2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not
available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings

RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I
think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes
the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter
who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is
based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of
the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same.

3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are
biased to horses that run on the pace.

RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead.

4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of
racing but seem to require specialist skills.

RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills,
surelyl!!  All aspects of the punt require special skills

5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing

RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings
so don't know if there is a difference or not.

6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win

RKOZ: That's no great insight.

7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy
- 150+ selections over a  12 month period - maybe for any selection
strategy. 
Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the
exception.

RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I
guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for
your next house buy if you can do this.

8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races
tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months.

RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less
chance of winning.

9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy
over time

RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system.  Would agree.

10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of
hundred true favourites a year

RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there.

11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late
mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already.

RKOZ: Don't really know.

12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30%
jockey/40% others under-rated

RKOZ: Seems reasonable.

13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and
using a bookie maybe worth another 5%.

RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly
there.

14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not
Perform

RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing.

Posted by butthead originally

RKOZ: Not sure about the rest.
>From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid
punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas
of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and
underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with
trainers.
Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply
because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the
first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some
of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race
time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether
you agree and if you are good enough you win.

Lunch is ready!!

Ciao

Roman Koz